Shawn Corpening-Bey v. Alvin Keller, No. 12-7936 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7936 SHAWN DUPREE CORPENING-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ALVIN W. KELLER; REUBEN F. YOUNG; DUANE TERRELL; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00300-RJC) Submitted: March 13, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Dupree Corpening-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Dupree Corpening-Bey seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Corpening-Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3